This post on TPMd by Amanda Marcotte really opened my eyes about why conservatives made such a big deal about “traditional” marriage being destroyed but never really supported that conclusion with any kind of premise that made sense.

In reality, however, there was a subterranean argument that actually is logical and makes perfect sense. It was never just about man-woman marriages. The tradition that is disappearing is the belief that marriage is a duty, especially for women. As Douthat argues, Americans are rejecting “the old rules, its own hopes of joy and happiness to chase.”

Progressives had a wrong, or incomplete, definition of “traditional”. The complaints about birth control and whether women should have control over their own bodies are all part of the same belief — that women should be under the thumb of a man and the hell with happiness and free choice and personal liberty. That kind of marriage should die in a fire.

Reading Douthat, you do get a better idea of why conservatives see same-sex marriage as a threat to traditional marriage. It’s not because straight people won’t want to get married if gays are doing it, too. It’s because it redefines marriage as an institution of love instead of oppression.

Guess what, people. You get to practice your religion up to the point where you infringe on someone else’s life. That’s it. That’s the cut off. That is as far as you can push your religion. (In fact, that is as far as you can push anything you want to do.) That’s all “religious liberty” means. Because if you can force your religion onto someone else, then they don’t get to take part in this “Freeedom of Religion” the Framers thought so important that they put it into the very First Amendment.

Guess what else, people. “Religious liberty” is not under assault. Not in any way shape or form. What is “under assault” — a horribly inaccurate term if there ever was one — is the privilege Christians have had until recently to force their religion on other people. It really is as simple as that, and I dare someone to prove otherwise.

So, Men’s Rights Advocates are mostly horrible people with a highly mistaken view of reality. I admit, however, that there are a couple-few places where work could be done in the area of helping men. The courts when dealing with fathers, while getting better, could probably be even more egalitarian. Men could use their own shelters when they are the victims of DV. The rate of incarceration of men, especially men of color, may be far higher than they should be in relation to women. (Yes, I used some weasel words — I’m trying to be charitable to a generally terrible group of people.) Perhaps there should be an organization that works towards fixing these inequities.

So, men who are feeling lost, unsure, threatened and violated, complaining on the internet should help you out just fine. It’s not like a Google search for “Men’s Shelter” might give you someplace to go if you are in trouble, and maybe a place to donate time or money to help out Men. I didn’t link because Google is good at knowing where you are and my search is not your search.

I’m sure that Google really has no response for any other men’s issues, too.

I really have no other response than what David at We Hunted the Mammoth has already said — A Voice For Men has set itself up as the premier site for Men’s Issues and they have no plans to do anything for men.

The purpose of a Grand Jury in the United States is to decide whether a crime May have taken place. It seems a shitty bigot of an ADA decided to present the results in a highly irregular manor to this Grand Jury in the Michael Brown case. And they decided not to indict.

So… let’s bring this to its lowest level. An unarmed teenager was shot dead in the street. And this Grand Jury decided that there was no possible way a crime was committed.